Monday, October 12, 2009

the fortune of war is changing. this time the USA forces in and near bastogne have been encircled by strong german armored units. more german armored units have crossed the river our near ortheuville, have taken marche and reached st. hubert by passing through hompre-sibret-tillet. libramont is in german hands.

there is only one possibility to save the encircled USA troops from total annihilation: that is the honorable surrender of the encircled town. in order to think it over a term of two hours will be granted beginning with the presentation of this note.

if this proposal should be rejected one german artillery corps and six heavy A. A. battalions are ready to annihilate the USA troops in and near bastogne. the order for firing will be given immediately after this two hours term.

all the serious civilian losses caused by this artillery fire would not correspond with the well-known american humanity.

the german commander.

the terse response of the US commander, general anthony c. mcauliffe, became one of the most famous retorts in history:

according to various accounts from those present, when mcauliffe was told of the german demand for surrender he said "aw, nuts". at a loss for an official reply, lt. col. harry kinnard suggested that his first remark summed the situation up well, which was agreed to by the others. the official reply ... was typed and delivered by colonel joseph harper, commanding the 327th glider infantry, and his s-3 major jones to the german delegation. harper had to explain the meaning of the word to the germans, telling them that in "plain english" it meant "go to hell."

the 101st was able to hold off the german assault until the 4th armored division arrived to provide reinforcement but the town was regained the next day due to the reinforcements. for his actions at bastogne, mcauliffe was awarded the distinguished service cross by general patton on december 30, 1944, followed later by the distinguished service medal.

the implication of the court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. and there would not be a trial, unless the motion to dismiss requested by the defense was in whole or in part DENIED!

dr. taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the scheduling order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. we need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. the judge specifically said that the scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.

charles e. lincoln, research associate & law clerk for dr. taitz, esq., attorney for the plaintiffs.

dear mr. west:
unless you can provide us with a more thoughtful answer and analysis of the situation, or can you ask mr. dejute to do so, we will report your laconic response below to judge carter as the full and final statement of the united states' well-considered position in this case.

you are obviously not a student of military history. because you appear confused, let me be clear. per judge carter’s order, discovery is stayed in this case. we will not agree to any discovery in this case at this time.